Whatever the outcome, the King v. Burwell case has huge implications for the future of the Affordable Care Act. While the hearings start today, a decision won't likely be passed down until June. Here are the three possible outcomes of this case.
5. This argument makes clear how important it is to have the right Justices on the Supreme Court. It's not just for the big-forest constitutional questions but for the in-the-trees statutory questions where a lot of our law is made, and where all of us have a very important stake.
If the Supreme Court invalidates premium credits in the federal exchange, the number of uninsured Americans would jump by roughly 8 million. Millions more would face dramatic premium increases; RAND estimates that premiums would jump by 47 percent.
In short, there was a great deal in Justice Kennedy's questions this morning that should give hope to supporters of the ACA. To be sure, opponents of the law might tell a different story.
By directly ignoring a federal court's ruling, the bullies who make up the Alabama Supreme Court have shown us that not only is discrimination alive and well, it will risk disobeying actual laws in order to achieve its sectarian goals.
King v. Burwell opens the door to a much broader impact on ObamaCare than just the matter of subsidies. It would be huge if the Supreme Court determines the Court was wrong in affirming the IRS interpretation.
There is no need to speak in the abstract about the calamitous effects that would come to pass if the Supreme Court takes away these vital tax credits from so many across the country.
Removal of the tax credits from the Affordable Care Act means worse health outcomes for health center patients. Those who could have entered the health system at an early and treatable point of a health condition may end up visiting their health center/ER with a much more complicated (and costly) issue. Not only is this a moral argument, it's a basic public health argument.
Netanyahu's speech may be evidence of hubris run amok on his part, but it is also a vivid illustration of the pervasive and destructive rise of partisanship in American politics over the last few decades.
Republicans in Congress have been saying for five years now that their top priority is to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. The problem, however, is that they are now scrambling to come up with something (anything!) that would help convince John Roberts to vote against the ACA.
If the Roberts Court chooses to sabotage millions of Americans' access to health care, the consequences will be catastrophic for many everyday people, and possibly fatal to some.
Federal funding levels for the Title X family planning program have not come close to meeting the demonstrated need for family planning care and growing challenges of our provider network. In an environment of fiscal austerity and politically motivated attacks, publicly funded family planning health centers cannot continue to do more with less.
If the Supreme Court imposes stringent notice requirements on job applicants and employees, it will set the clock back on religious rights in the workplace by decades. Employers will be able to duck their heads into the sand any time a visibly religious Sikh, Muslim or Jew walks in.
I never get when people say, "I have no regrets." I will continue to apologize forever for my idiocy.
We cannot raise awareness about the heroines and heroes of history, and then turn around and be cowards 50 years later. This Congress must deal with overt moves among states to obstruct people's right to vote, and they must restore federal protections of voting rights.
The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argue that federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA") are lawful only in states which have set up their own health care exchanges. This case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court, and the very survival of the ACA could be at stake.